Delegate
Preparation Review
2006 Synod Southern Province
Direction for
Synod has shift in emphasis with new DPC Survey-
Is addressing Biblical Authority so divisive as to be
“Biblically inappropriate?"
by Lee
Sprinkle
January 11, 2006
On the Delegate Preparation Process:
The need for early synod
preparation especially in light of the Synod 2002 controversies was
recognized and welcomed. Some ministers and their congregations
were beginning their preparation shortly after the Synod of 2002
delegates had returned home. Rev. Neil Routh leads the delegate
preparation team in the Southern Province and explained that the PEC
recognized the need to begin the preparation process for 2006
earlier than previous synods but Routh admits that not enough time
was given to gather and collate all the input from the
Congregational and Agency Questionnaires.
The official
call to congregations came from the office of PEC and the designated
Delegate Preparation Committee led by Steve Wilson (Senior Pastor,
Little Church on the Lane Moravian Church) and Neil Routh (Senior
Pastor, Christ Moravian Church).
A memo/letter sent April 05 to
congregations and provincial agencies
“Synod Delegates and Joint Board Dialogue” called for the
process to begin:
“A crucial part of preparation for the 2006 Synod for the Synod
Planning Committee is to gather information and observations from
each congregation and agency in the Southern Province. The Chair
of each respective congregational joint board or agency board is
asked to convene your board, along with the delegates of your
congregation (or the agency staff) to discuss the questions below.
The information generated from this discussion should be returned to
the Delegate Preparation Committee for the 2006 Synod via the
Provincial Elders’ office no later than June 30.”
The preparation committee received,
collated and reported responses to delegates in a packet that
included copies of the written responses from each reporting
congregation and agency.
|
Complete summary of congregational responses
Survey Summary
Response totals as of July
19,2005:
·
32 of 59
congregations and fellowships responding
·
3 of 9
provincial boards and agencies responding
The summary that follows is
focused on the response to question three of the survey:
" As you
consider the diversity of our broader shared ministries as the
Southern Province, which stretch from V A to FL, what aspects
of ministry are most important for the 2006 Synod to address
to best support and inspire positive growth in our shared
ministries in the next synodal period (2006-2010)?"
Each congregational, provincial
board or agency group and their respective delegates were
asked to respond and to note the top three responses. A single
response for each congregational or provincial board / agency
was requested noting the top three replies each group had
prioritized.
· 35
groups responded; 105 possible different answers
· there
were 7 categories with at least 10 responses:
1. Polity and Organizational
Management [18]
2. Evangelism and Church Growth
[17] :,
3. Theologies and Faith
Expression [16]
4. Unities and Community
Building [15]
5. Stand on Issues of
Controversy [13]
6.
Social Concerns, Justice, and Tolerance [10]
7.
Stewardships and Financial Reform [10]
There were six additional
categories with a moderate response of 2 to 5:
·
the categories receiving five responses include:
1. Youth and Camp Ministries
[ 5]
2. Ministerial Development
[5]
3. Communication [ 5]
· the
categories receiving at least two responses include:
1.
Moravian Heritage [3]
2.
Marketing, Promotion, and Public Relations [3]
3.
Education and Spiritual Formation [2]
|
Delegates were notified
of their first meeting together by the memo/letter below. Committees
and subsequent resolutions will be determined from the
congregational responses and the responses of those who attend:
|
First Pre-Synod meetings notification letter
It is time to begin the preparation for Synod
2006 taking place next April. There will be informational
meetings at several locations beginning in August. Please see
the schedule below and choose the time best-suited for you.
Your pastor is about to receive a handbook for each official and
alternate delegate from your congregation which will give you an
orientation about what to expect, how resolutions move through
synod, and how you can more effectively participate in synod.
Your pastor is also receiving a compilation of all the responses
we have received from the Delegates and Joint Board Discussions.
There is one for each delegate. The committees for synod, and
subsequently the resolutions from synod, will be determined from
these responses and the responses of those who attend the
pre-synod meetings. Your input at the pre-synod meeting will be
very much appreciated. |
Delegates arrived at their variously
scheduled meetings prepared to discuss the reported responses.
Delegates were divided into groups and were asked to discuss the
surveys from the congregations and the survey summary provided by
the DPC. The group was tasked with determining what their group
agreed with, what was missing and what God was calling their group
to see; What were the planners not wise enough to ask but needs to
be voiced or heard? These responses were reported by a spokesperson
to the entire group and submitted in writing to the PDC at the end
of the meeting.
In
two meetings, one in Winston Salem and the other in King that were
attended by a total of approximately 150 delegates, the oral
presentations seemed to agree with the ideas and concerns expressed
in the Congregation and Agency Questionnaire. There
was a general concern that so few C&As had submitted responses to
the PEC and DPC. (Rev. Routh responded to this concern at the second
meeting wanting to put to rest ideas that some of the non-responding
C&As were upset and therefore refusing to participate. Routh said
that time and communication issues caused the delay.)
Dr. Neil Routh offers this review of
those responses as he and Rev. Steve Wilson heard the delegates
report. Routh notes:
“The
feedback we gathered matches the outcome of the questionnaire”.
1)
Focus on evangelism,
2)
If
there are new statements of our theology they should be clearly
grounded in the Moravian Covenant for Christian Living and the
Ground of the Unity (as opposed to any other form of theology from
other religious groups or denominations),
3)
Focus on outreach to those who are suffering,
4)
Rebuild a stronger sense of unity and community within the province
and between congregations.
Dr. Routh writes:
“What carried the day
was the affirmation to work together toward the goals of evangelism,
outreach and unity. The expression of concern was minor by
comparison. This is borne out in the subsequent questionnaire as
well.”
The summary of the First delegate
Preparation Meetings was prepared by the DPC and distributed to
delegates at the conclusion of the second delegate preparation
meetings in Nov. Rev Routh did agree that collation of responses
was subjective and at best difficult.
Other points of agreement that were
apparent at the meeting to me, revolved around these concerns.
·
Affirmation or lack of affirmation of what we believe
by our province regarding our traditional theology related to
authority of scripture and salvation through Christ.
·
Concern about ability of Leadership
·
Concern for lack of responses by Congregations and
Agencies to the questionnaire
·
Concern that responses did not focus on youth programs
·
Concern that congregations were only addressing local
issues
It is apparent that the nature of the
congregational questionnaire allowed a wide variation in the way
different concerns were framed and therefore collated and reported.
In a conversation with Rev. Routh, he agreed that collating was a
very subjective procedure that might result in the same concern
being placed in different categories because of the wording of the
congregation’s response. For example: A comment questioning the
effectiveness of the current provincial structure. Was it
appropriately placed in the Polity and Organizational Management or
would the context of that comment in the total report place it more
appropriately in theology and faith expression or evangelism and
church growth or stand on issues of controversy or even some
others?
The DP Committee did not collate the
congregational and agency responses that arrived late, after the
first delegate preparation meeting. Those responses were available
to delegates as they left the second preparation meeting. Rev Routh
was not sure that any further collation and report work would be
done to include the latter questionnaire responses into a total
survey summary writing:
“Understand
that normally survey entries that included a misinterpretation of
instructions are cast out as invalid and only those that followed
the procedure requested are used. If we had done that it would mean
that less than 50% of the groups that responded would be heard.
The main thing is for
delegates to use synod itself as a place to communicate openly with
each other and seek the guidance of the Lord as we prepare for that
event. The delegates are not responsible to adhere to a
survey or questionnaire no matter what mandate you think they may or
may not prescribe. They must listen to Christ with and
through each other.”
The DPC’s concern that instructions for
completing the surveys were not followed and therefore
resulted in information that may not have accurately represented the
collective views of that congregation or agency came from a review
of the questionnaires by a consultant, according to Routh.
Rev Routh responded that some
groups or individuals appeared to use the survey for venting a
frustration that they may have and this was not an
appropriate vehicle for that communication. Rev Routh writes,
“In
stead of turning in an expression of a vision for their ministry in
the next four years, they used the survey to critique various parts
of the province or express what think the province as a whole is
lacking.”
A final concern that Rev. Routh relates
is that original letters from the DPC were misinterpreted.
From (2) memos/letters from the office of the PEC and DPC to
congregations, agencies and to delegates:”
|
See response request
From request letter to
Congregations requesting survey information
“Please forward both a summary of
the dialogue from each question along with what the group agrees
are the top three priorities to each question. This information
will be collated and presented at the Delegate Training Event at
the end of the summer. Further feedback will be gathered at the
Delegate Training Event to develop a clear sense of what the
primary points of interest and concern are for the 2006 Synod.”
|
|
First Pre-Synod meetings notification letter
From delegate letter
“The committees for synod, and
subsequently the resolutions from synod, will be determined from
these (congregational and Agency) responses and the responses of
those who attend the pre-synod meetings. Your input at the
pre-synod meeting will be very much appreciated.”
|
The DPC had become concerned that
the survey was viewed as a resource that would set priorities for
delegates as they developed committees and ultimately
resolutions for synod. Rev Routh writes:
“An
additional summary of all the combined surveys has not been
discussed, mainly do to time constraints. I would add that
somewhere along the way a perception that the survey itself
was intended to set the priorities of synod emerged, which
was never true. The delegates themselves have to do that. The
surveys allow the delegates to see what each congregation and agency
hopes to do in the next four years and suggests how synod might help
to achieve of these hopes.
Rev. Routh has
expressed concern that it does create a dilemma as to how you
prepare a delegate if information like that from the congregations
is not apart of a planning process that establishes priorities. As
a reminder, he stated that by definition delegates are not at synod
to represent the views of their congregations or the denomination as
a whole. Delegates will continue to be encouraged to be in prayer
and make decisions based on how the Holy Spirit leads them.
At the close of the 2nd
Delegate preparation meeting delegates were given another survey
prepared by the DPC that was described as a collation of
delegate responses from the first DP meeting in
August.
Delegates only had
the Questionnaire in our hands about 5 or 10 minutes as it was
filled out. No prior opportunity was given to study the new survey,
ask questions or compare it to the original congregational surveys
that had received general approval by the delegates at the previous
meeting.
The New servey
was handed out to each delegate who was asked to fill out, sign and
return before leaving the meeting.
When inquiring on
how to obtain a copy of this document, produced by the DPC, to study
more carefully. Rev Routh says the DPC had not decided whether to
make this form available and suggested that a request should
be made to Bob Sawyer.
The office of the PEC provided the New
DPC produced Survey and it appears below. See explanation by Rev
Neil Routh as to why this survey was developed.
Delegate Survey Form
Delegate Questionnaire / 2006
Synod
Name: ____________________________ Congregation:
__________________________________
Complete each item below noting the best possible answer for you
as a delegate of the 2006 Synod. The results of this
questionnaire will be used to assist the planning process to
determine what level of priority should be given to each item
below. This questionnaire is for official delegates only. Circle
only one for each item.
1.
Outreach: A primary point of focus for this Synod is how
to help our' congregations and provincial ministries to find new
ways to express and live the gospel with those currently in
distress and suffering.
1
(agree strongly) 2 (agree)
(perhaps)
4 (disagree)
5(Strongly disagree)
2.
Evangelism: Evangelism and church growth should be a
major point of focus for the 2006 Synod. We need to enable our
congregations and provincial agencies to find new ways to reach
new folks.
1
(agree strongly) 2 (agree)
3 (perhaps) 4 (disagree)
5(strong1y disagree)
3.
Diversity in Worship: There is a far reaching concern for
many about the decreased number off folks under the age of 50
now attending church - especially those between 18-40 years of
age. Should this be a major area of focus at synod -i.e.,
developing more relevant ways to reach those between
18--40 years of age, while continuing to support those who do
attend?
1
(very important) 2 (important) 3(sort of important)
4 (low importance) 5(not important)
4.
Diversity in demographics: Despite the call of the
Moravian Covenant for Christian Living and the Ground of Unity
Statement to address racial and economic segregation, the
worship hour remains the most segregated hour in American
society. How significant should this concern be for synod?
1
(very important) 2 (important) 3(sort of important)
4 (low importance) 5(not important)
5.
Management: Evaluation of the entire provincial structure
and how it functions is an important role of every synod. What
priority should this receive at this synod?
1
(high focus) 2 (important focus)
3 (moderate focus) 4
(low focus) 5
(no focus)
6.
Justice: The Moravian Covenant for Christian Living and
the Ground of the Unity place a significant level of focus on
the role of the Church to educate and initiate involvement in
social justice. Do you think doing justice through social
action and education should be an important focus for this
synod?
1
(agree strongly) 2 (agree)
3 (perhaps) 4 (disagree) 5(strongly
disagree)
7.
Communication: Improving communication with the province
and from the congregational level to the communities in which we
serve remains a high level of importance for many. How
important should this issue be for this Synod?
1
(high focus) 2 (important focus)
3 (moderate focus) 4 (low focus)
5 (no focus)
8.
Theology: How important should the focus on theology and
doctrine be for this synod?
1
(high focus) 2 (important focus)
3 (moderate focus) 4 (low focus)
5 (no focus)
9.
Theology; The Unity Synod and the Books of Order for the
Unity and this province state that our practice of theology
should be grounded in the Moravian Covenant for Christian Living
and the Ground of the Unity Statement. Do you agree that
whatever expressions of theology and doctrine come from a synod,
that they should clear1y stand within the framework of these two
statements of our common faith?
1
(agree strongly) 2 (agree)
3(perhaps)
4 (disagree)
5(strongly disagree)
10.
Tolerance: A significant expression of Moravian heritage
is the expression of the gospel that is c1ear, ground in a
context that calls us all to an ever-growing relationship to the
Lord, while being tolerant of the cu1tural differences within
religiously pluralistic places. How significant is religious
tolerance to you?
1
(very important) 2 (important) 3(sort of important)
4 (low importance) 5(not important)
11.
Managing Controversy; Do you think that our province
needs new guidelines for handling issues of controversy?
1
(very important) 2 (important)
3(sort of important) 4 (low importance)
5(not important)
12.
Heritage:
Do you support the ongoing work of provincial boards and
publications to maintain a high level of awareness about our
Moravian heritage in the province as a resource of doing present
and new ministry?
1
(agree strongly) 2 (agree) 3 (perhaps) 4
(disagree) 5(strongly disagree)
13.
Stewardship: How important should the stewardship of the
financial resources of the congregations, as they relate to
supporting the province, as well as the evaluation of the
budgetary needs of the given boards and agencies, be at this
synod?
1
(very important) 2 (important) 3(sort of important)
4 (low importance) 5(not important)
14.
Education: Christian education and spiritual formation
are at the hub of our identity and life as a community. What
priority should this synod give to the development of new
efforts to strengthen these aspects of our common ministry in
our congregations and through provincial programs?
1
(very important) 2 (important) 3(sort of important)
4 (low importance) 5(not important)
15.
Ministerial Development: What priority should this synod
give to present programs and strategies for developing and
recruiting ministerial leaders, as well as the support and
development of those presently serving as our ministers?
1
(very important) 2 (important)
3(sort of important) 4 (low importance)
5(not important)
16.
Professional Ministry: In recent synods much has been
done to clarify the distinctions between clergy and professional
Christian Educators. Should this synod take time to clarify the
distinctions and lines of provincial accountability for those
now serving on church staffs as pastoral assistants or other
non-ordained pastoral roles?
1
(very important) 2 (important)
3(sort of important) 4 (low importance)
5(not important)
17.
Public Relations: The need for expertise in promoting,
marketing, and general public relations for our congregations
seems to be growing. It is made more significant by the presence
of many more religious options than those that existed even 10
years ago. Do you think new programs for helping congregations
gain such expertise is in order?
1
(agree strongly) 2 (agree)
3(perhaps)
4 (disagree)
5(strongly disagree)
18.
Vision: One thing I hope this synod can initiate is a
process for developing a clearer sense of our common direction
and purpose as a province.
1
(agree strongly) 2(agree) 3
(perhaps) 4 (disagree)
5(strongly disagree)
19.
Community and Unity: One thing I hope that this synod can
do is to set a course of reviving a stronger sense of common
community and unity between our members, our leaders, our
clergy, and our congregations.
1
(agree strongly) 2 (agree) 3 (perhaps) 4
(disagree)
5(strongly disagree)
20.
I think that the most significant issue for this synod to
address, from my own standpoint, is:
|
This
new form may not offer much help in establishing priorities but will
it serve to start the thinking process for delegates in a fresh new
way ?
The
collation of Congregational and Agency responses is subjective at
best so the following is humbly offered as one possible
categorization. All delegates are encouraged to review the summaries
for their own analysis.
In
absents of a final collation from the DPC the entire body of
responses from the Congregations and Agencies Responses (C&AR) was
reviewed to see if and how the DPC survey might be different if all
congregational responses were collated and accounted for in the
survey.
In
consideration of accurately combining comments into a common areas
of shared concern it should be noted that agencies and congregations
tended to report different concerns that synod should address,
therefore two groups are collated separately. (Collated results
from 10 reporting agencies and 42 reporting congregations)
The
category that was populated with the most responses is:
Concern for
our church leaders and their responses to challenges on doctrines
and theological disagreements that relate to affirming who we are
and what we believe in a clear and concise way.
Congregations
offering statements in this category = 31
Agencies offering
statements in this category = 2
This category received the most
interest by congregations even though the same congregations
without exceptions discussed other areas of concern ranging from
church growth, finances to missions. The fact that only a few groups
mentioned youth ministries alarmed some. Dr. Routh related that
lack of responses about youth ministries was a good example of why
it was decided that the surveys could not be used as an accurate
guide of priority for synod action. Some were concerned that we
would look at CRs and make an inference that youth ministry is not
important.
|
Congregational Responses
reported to the DPC
(Each number represents a
separate congregation or agency response)
1.
Appropriate representation on the PEC – We will take the
Bible literally as the inerrant word of God – Returning to the
essentials and define them clearly - Know what you believe,
articulate what you believe – Preach it –Teach it- Live it –
Evangelize it.
2.
Confirming the authority of the Bible as God’s Word –
Province needs to take a biblical stand on social issues – a new
sense of our mission to witness through awareness of our
sinfulness.
3.
Need for a unified theology, common practice regarding
rites and sacraments, and adherence to the order of the
province/denomination to make the Moravian Church a more
effective instrument of outreach and evangelism and the
congregation a better managed and administered body – Biblical
illiteracy makes us vulnerable to any and everyone else’s
interpretation irrespective of that persons credentials.
4.
Take a stand on issues that are theologically divisive.
5.
Preserving the traditions of the Moravian Church, and
address the relevance and leadership of the PEC.
6.
Make our mission clear to all – standardize curriculum
and education resources- more effective and open communication
in the province.
7.
Establishing
what we believe and what example we set to and for others,
including the secular world- keeping a common bond as we face
difficult issues and challenges. Staying together in Christ!
8.
Re-emphases on spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ
through word and Action.
9.
Promote understanding of The Ground of the Unity, the
Holy Scriptures and great creeds of the Church especially in
regards to the life death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ – Simple, straight forward statements from Provincial
leaders on the uniqueness of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Otherwise we will continue to be looked on by many fellow
Christians and non-Christians, as unsure of our beliefs and
quick to compromise (a “unity at all cost mindset”) –
reestablish trust in Provincial leadership regarding handling of
provincial finances and openness of financial budgets and
salaries of provincial staff.
10.
It is imperative that the Synod 2006 reaffirms the
essential beliefs of the Moravians with clarity – Address the
need to rebuild the trust between the members of the Moravian
Church and the PEC – A need for more Godly leadership in
recruiting and preparing people for ministry – build trust
through better communication with PEC and agencies.
11.
Making a firm stand on controversial issues, faith
issues, and keeping a biblical emphasis – let people know what
the Moravian Church is.
12.
Synod and PEC can greatly encourage our congregation by
speaking and acting consistently with the foundational beliefs
of the orthodox Christian faith – an unwavering and public stand
on issues that threaten to split our denomination. As long as
Synod allows the Truth to be compromised, the enemy will
diminish the efficacy of our denominational leadership.
13.
Maintaining our historic Christ-centered ministry.
14.
Affirm Scriptural authority – Christ is the sole and
unique way to eternal life – address: sexuality in the church,
the PEC president, PEC members, and full communion with the
Episcopal Church.
15.
Take stand on our doctrine without compromise. Do not
allow our efforts to increase in attendance cause us to weaken
our gospel message.
16.
Make Christ and the Church the main focus
17.
More clarity from Synod on social and moral issues.
18.
Reaffirmation that Jesus is the Chief Elder in the
church.
19.
Stronger Provincial leadership – willing to take decisive
action quicker.
20.
Keep Christ as our focus – No doubt as to where we stand
in terms of our salvation (no waffling – PEC)
21.
We feel the number one issue facing the Southern Province
is adherence to Biblical Truth. If the province would take a
stand for biblical truth, there would be more unity, better
clarification, and an understanding of what the Moravian Church
believes and stands for. More importantly, we would be in
accordance with God’s truth and His Will- We must be willing to
make decisions based on the Truth of the Bible, not on
preferences of people or of whims of society.
22.
Preserving and teaching our church’s doctrine,
particularly as it relates to the means of salvation and
authority of the Bible – Reduce the cost of Provincial
administration
23.
Strong commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ should
determine our progress – Faith- Being the Church God called us
to be.
24.
Provincial leadership to continue to emphasize Jesus
Christ as the only way to salvation (no ifs or ands or buts)
Embrace completely the Ground of the Unity as it spells out this
essential – emphatically proclaim what we as a church stand for.
25.
Keep the world and provincial dissention out of the
church by remaining constantly focused on the cross – PEC and
ordained ministers should be held accountable to proclaim
emphatically the doctrine in accordance with the Moravian Church
that “Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.”
26.
Minister Training – more training, guidance, and a more
professional approach to the job for both new and existing
ministers.
27.
Strive for more qualified leadership including PEC
members, committee members – Insure that all new ministers
beginning service practice and believe the Bible in all things.
28.
Clear provincial leadership (don’t leave people wandering
who we are and what we believe.) – Christ centered focus in all
that we do – refuting the theology that suggests there are other
means of salvation than the Person and work of Jesus Christ – A
Biblical stance on controversial issues such as abortion,
homosexuality, ect.
29.
Who are Moravians? – Tell the community who we are and
what we believe – interprovincial trust issues – Polity
conflicts – reaffirm conferential church.
30.
Be more aggressive about letting people know about our
faith and our denomination – Be more clear about our doctrinal
beliefs – let people know more about our moral and ethical
stance, some want more narrow definitions while others
appreciate the openness within them.
The following
church response apparently was not a product of a joint meeting
as requested and caused some difficulty for the DPC to
categorize as mentioned above. The response was submitted as a
response from 1st) the Joint Boards, 2nd)
the Pastor and 3rd) their synod delegates. Although
this report is separate, it does reflect similar concerns and
interest. Their as submitted is:
·
From
Joint Boards – Loss of active members (especially families) due
to disagreements on theology and doctrinal issues.
·
From Pastor –
Openness to variety of thoughts and ideas (not locked into
traditions)
·
From Synod
delegates – Not define ourselves based upon a narrow focus of
theology based on a few “Hot topic issues”
Closest Provincial Agency
responses
1.
Articulate a vision – God’s vision- for the Southern
Province, affirming our conferential structure, identity, and
polity.
2.
Make greater use of the wider electronic media to
proclaim the Moravian Church story.
|
Questions for
consideration:
1. After reviewing the 2006
synod delegate preparation events thus far, does the second survey
suggest a
different direction for synod than the first?
2. Which survey
best reveals the true concerns of the survey participants?
3. Is there a
difference between the first and second survey?
4. If
there is a difference between the surveys, should all delegates be
made aware?
